I saw a few 65" from various Panasonic, LG, Samsung etc. But once I saw the 84" 4k it was like comparing the 1080p image to VGA . The sheer size of the 84" and the seriously impressive 4k image was amazing. It was my first experience seeing a 4k image on a big screen.

They had still images and time lapse videos. They didn't have any normal film samples or anything like that but from the demo I saw it was impressive. The detail and resolution was on another level, as it should be.

It was for sale at £22.5k. I think if these drop to about £3-5k in 3-5yrs I can see myself getting one for my living room. Hopefully by then will have more 4k media about. Can't wait.

Koing

__________________My first Cut
Make a thread in Health and Fitness for related advice

What's the size of the pixels on a 84" screen compared to a much smaller 1080 display? I get that increasing the resolution is beneficial, but scaling the size seems counter intuitive when it comes to PPI/density.

It will happen. RED will see to that, but it will be propriatary. Fortunately, relatively speaking, their player isn't THAT expensive. Hopefully in due time it will come down to a for-the-masses price as their

Quote:

4K For All

doesn't really support that price.

Additionally, those that are more critical to IQ may have an issue with their purported...under 2.5MBps data rate. While that shouldn't be too much of an issue for ISP across the board, 4k doesn't deserve that kind of compression. Blu-ray is already compressed at LEAST 10:1 and color banding/gradients suck. Granted, Pannys newer plasmas claim more shades of gradation which may address that...and granted, I've not seen one long enough to compare, but now we're talking even MORE compression and I don't see it being all that great.

That said, 4k content is the nail in blu-ray's coffin. 50GB isn't going to cut it, nor is its vaporware 100/128GB discs, which may not even work in many existing players anyway.

Since it's read only (and I'm changing my tune in another physical media of the future thread), we need to move to a easier to have in large capacity format that would be relatively easy to mass produce, cheap and read only. In this case, CF cards work. DRM needs to be handled differently in this case. I hate DRM and think it's pretty rediculous, but there's a very simple way around the fact that CF doesn't have it. I won't go into the details in this thread as far as ideas, but the fact is, 4K needs a better storage option than what we're used to, plain and simple.

TVs will come down in price sooner than the first round of HD TVs did. The tech is more than advanced enough to allow those prices to be much lower than they are now...but, being the new shiny thing, it's required to have a high price.

4K content is already being made. When it gets to the consumer, there will be a 4K option along side of it. Whether things not originally made with RED gear will end up on RED's player is to be seen, but guaranteed The Hobbit will certainly be one of the first big films to hit it.

JVC has a demo at my building a couple years ago with their pro 4k sets. It was pretty amazing. Almost like looking at a photograph or something. However they were probably feeding it uncompressed video. That'll be the big challenge. Even NTSC looks pretty reasonable uncompressed. Trying to get your cable provided to deliver it without butchering it is rough.

What's the size of the pixels on a 84" screen compared to a much smaller 1080 display? I get that increasing the resolution is beneficial, but scaling the size seems counter intuitive when it comes to PPI/density.

Same pixel density as a 42" 1080p TV, which is why it's really only to make TVs bigger, not sharper (unless you got a 55-60" 4K TV).

Personally, I think OLED is a far more important technology, because no matter what the content, it's going to look better on an OLED TV. Deeper blacks, brighter whites, and a real contrast ratio that will make your eyes cry tears. Just need to get that price down from $10k to $2k and I'll be all over that bad boy, but they have to actually SHIP them in order for economies of scale to kick in!

It will happen. RED will see to that, but it will be propriatary. Fortunately, relatively speaking, their player isn't THAT expensive. Hopefully in due time it will come down to a for-the-masses price as their doesn't really support that price.

Additionally, those that are more critical to IQ may have an issue with their purported...under 2.5MBps data rate. While that shouldn't be too much of an issue for ISP across the board, 4k doesn't deserve that kind of compression. Blu-ray is already compressed at LEAST 10:1 and color banding/gradients suck. Granted, Pannys newer plasmas claim more shades of gradation which may address that...and granted, I've not seen one long enough to compare, but now we're talking even MORE compression and I don't see it being all that great.

That said, 4k content is the nail in blu-ray's coffin. 50GB isn't going to cut it, nor is its vaporware 100/128GB discs, which may not even work in many existing players anyway.

Since it's read only (and I'm changing my tune in another physical media of the future thread), we need to move to a easier to have in large capacity format that would be relatively easy to mass produce, cheap and read only. In this case, CF cards work. DRM needs to be handled differently in this case. I hate DRM and think it's pretty rediculous, but there's a very simple way around the fact that CF doesn't have it. I won't go into the details in this thread as far as ideas, but the fact is, 4K needs a better storage option than what we're used to, plain and simple.

TVs will come down in price sooner than the first round of HD TVs did. The tech is more than advanced enough to allow those prices to be much lower than they are now...but, being the new shiny thing, it's required to have a high price.

4K content is already being made. When it gets to the consumer, there will be a 4K option along side of it. Whether things not originally made with RED gear will end up on RED's player is to be seen, but guaranteed The Hobbit will certainly be one of the first big films to hit it.

I've been following RED stuff for years. And people who have seen content at the 2.5Mbps have said it looked *very* good.

It's not so much the data rate, it's the compression that they will use.

It was literally like looking at a photograph but running at an okay frame rate. I didn't see any film footage or anything like that, it was time lapse sample. It was the sheer size of the 84" tv and the resolution that impressed me.

Front projection in my case will never work. I'd ideally have a separate cinema room for all of that but I don't

Roll on the next 3-5yrs. A Japanese channel is going to broadcast 2014 World Cup in 4k!

Koing

__________________My first Cut
Make a thread in Health and Fitness for related advice

Same pixel density as a 42" 1080p TV, which is why it's really only to make TVs bigger, not sharper (unless you got a 55-60" 4K TV).

Personally, I think OLED is a far more important technology, because no matter what the content, it's going to look better on an OLED TV. Deeper blacks, brighter whites, and a real contrast ratio that will make your eyes cry tears. Just need to get that price down from $10k to $2k and I'll be all over that bad boy, but they have to actually SHIP them in order for economies of scale to kick in!

Shipping is the main issue. Can you imagine a big screen OLED that was in 4k?

I'm very happy with my 50" 1080p Panasonic from about 4yrs ago. But I'd love it to be 84" lol

Koing

__________________My first Cut
Make a thread in Health and Fitness for related advice

Gotcha. In re to your other post about compression. I suppose it will all be in the eye of the beholder. I may be overly critical over compression and I've not seen anything in H.265 yet so maybe it's worth the praise it's already getting, but then you have to ask why is it compressed to begin with? If compression is really all that great, why not natively shoot, post, and release in that format and not worry about compression after the fact? The answer is simply the codec can only do so much.

Personally, I want native, uncompressed video. IF you can say it's lossless, then OK. but I still contend that there will be some artifacts from the compression used.

RED's comparison photo is pretty obnoxious between what "is" and what they can accomplish. If you're as critical to IQ as I am, given what you say, I'd love to give it a go, but seeing is definitely believing.

I'll have to pop around to the local shops to see what they have to demo.

Gotcha. In re to your other post about compression. I suppose it will all be in the eye of the beholder. I may be overly critical over compression and I've not seen anything in H.265 yet so maybe it's worth the praise it's already getting, but then you have to ask why is it compressed to begin with? If compression is really all that great, why not natively shoot, post, and release in that format and not worry about compression after the fact? The answer is simply the codec can only do so much.

Personally, I want native, uncompressed video. IF you can say it's lossless, then OK. but I still contend that there will be some artifacts from the compression used.

RED's comparison photo is pretty obnoxious between what "is" and what they can accomplish. If you're as critical to IQ as I am, given what you say, I'd love to give it a go, but seeing is definitely believing.

I'll have to pop around to the local shops to see what they have to demo.

I just hope they improve fast moving mostly random scenes like fire and waves. It always looks like garbage on h.264. I'd much rather go to higher quality streams at 1080p than try 4k and live with over compressed video.

Gotcha. In re to your other post about compression. I suppose it will all be in the eye of the beholder. I may be overly critical over compression and I've not seen anything in H.265 yet so maybe it's worth the praise it's already getting, but then you have to ask why is it compressed to begin with? If compression is really all that great, why not natively shoot, post, and release in that format and not worry about compression after the fact? The answer is simply the codec can only do so much.

Personally, I want native, uncompressed video. IF you can say it's lossless, then OK. but I still contend that there will be some artifacts from the compression used.

RED's comparison photo is pretty obnoxious between what "is" and what they can accomplish. If you're as critical to IQ as I am, given what you say, I'd love to give it a go, but seeing is definitely believing.

I'll have to pop around to the local shops to see what they have to demo.

Can't comment on H.265 but the Red compressed codec for their Red Ray distribution is suppose to be the dogs gonads.

Why don't they shoot with the Red codec to start with? You lose information for colour grading and all of the other benefits that people love to record in RED RAW. And coupled with the fact that the encoding hardware is no where near real time at the moment.

Uncompressed video is the holy grail but the bandwidth needed to do it is just not here. 100's of GB for a 2hr movie.

Which comparison video are you looking at?

I'm excited to see how the Red Ray will come out and have more people comment on the RED codec but lots that have seen it were impressed by it.

The Amazing spider man, The Hobbit and loads of other films were shot on RED Epic 6k cameras.

We just need the industry to settle on a way to distribute 1080p properly.

FTFY. We're still in an age where a third of the cable channels are still broadcast in SD, most of the rest of them are just 720p upscaled to 1080p at the cable box, and maybe a handful actually broadcast in 1080p but still suffer from compression artifacts.

I'm not seeing 4K taking off in the consumer market anytime soon, it's taken us how many years and the SD to HD conversion is still a nightmarish mess.

FTFY. We're still in an age where a third of the cable channels are still broadcast in SD, most of the rest of them are just 720p upscaled to 1080p at the cable box, and maybe a handful actually broadcast in 1080p but still suffer from compression artifacts.

I'm not seeing 4K taking off in the consumer market anytime soon, it's taken us how many years and the SD to HD conversion is still a nightmarish mess.

Nothing is broadcast in 1080p, only 720 and 1080i using MPEG-2. For people care about picture quality, we are getting shafted. Compare a 720p broadcast to a 1080p iTunes version of a show like Archer and the difference is night and day. And the sad part is the iTunes version uses less bandwidth by 1/2!!

FTFY. We're still in an age where a third of the cable channels are still broadcast in SD, most of the rest of them are just 720p upscaled to 1080p at the cable box, and maybe a handful actually broadcast in 1080p but still suffer from compression artifacts.

I'm not seeing 4K taking off in the consumer market anytime soon, it's taken us how many years and the SD to HD conversion is still a nightmarish mess.

I figure whatever quality the standard is in theory, cable will always degrade it at least one level with over compression. IE NTSC to garbage, 720p to NTSC, 1080p to 720p. That means if we ever get 4k on cable we should probably expect it to look like what good quality 1080p looks like.

Nothing is broadcast in 1080p, only 720 and 1080i using MPEG-2. For people care about picture quality, we are getting shafted. Compare a 720p broadcast to a 1080p iTunes version of a show like Archer and the difference is night and day. And the sad part is the iTunes version uses less bandwidth by 1/2!!

MPEG-4 hardware decoders were still expensive when the HD conversion was happening, and now the replacement cost of all the MPEG-2 boxes that are out there makes an upgrade cost prohibitive.

The satellite companies went to all MPEG-4 out of bandwidth necessity, and the better PQ is just a side benefit.

I think there's a very real possibility that we'll see cable/fiber companies go straight to 4K + H.265 (with the side benefit of saving tons of bandwidth on current SD/HD channels) instead of going to an intermediate 1080p + MPEG-4 step.

I just saw a 90" LCD at PC Richards ($9,000 btw) and wasn't super impressed. A projector would do a better job imo, unless you need daytime viewing. I could definitely see how 4K would look better than 1080p at that size!

3D failed, so they're trying something else, and that's 4K. I predict that will fail too.

1080p is the end of the line for the foreseeable future folks. Hell, as mentioned, we still don't even have 1080p broadcast TV.

Why would companies go H.265 and 4K? They'd be better off going H.265 and 1080p. As for RED, they're pretty much irrelevant on the broadcast distribution side too, and just about nobody except the uber-AV geeks will buy a RED player. I certainly won't, and I'm the biggest AV geek I know.

3D failed, so they're trying something else, and that's 4K. I predict that will fail too.

1080p is the end of the line for the foreseeable future folks. Hell, as mentioned, we still don't even have 1080p broadcast TV.

Why would companies go H.265 and 4K? They'd be better off going H.265 and 1080p. As for RED, they're pretty much irrelevant on the broadcast distribution side too, and just about nobody except the uber-AV geeks will buy a RED player. I certainly won't, and I'm the biggest AV geek I know.

+1

People like to get excited and to get to extremes - either to watch video on 4"(or so...)iPhone or on giant screen...32, 37, 42 - aren't sized good to watch TV.
I've heard, people telling that that they see 47" LCD(led) HD from a few inches...what can I say - they want to believe in what they want to believe...

My reading glasses are 1080p, 3D ready...My optician told me, that for a couple hundred dollars, he could get me lenses that I could SEE Earth's Magnetic Field....

Human stupidity has no limits....

YOU can NOT see more than you are able...You can't not hear more than your ears are able to...No matter, how far technology would go....